PbP Gameday 2 - A Hymn of Wind and Flame [April 5th, 2014 to July 5th, 2014]

[Gerald]

I agree with Lithrac, Alice. I'd love Shel to get a shot at the Hellknight Feast after her great experience in the Blackros Matrimony!

[GM Tektite]

That sounds grand. I've never played in one of Alice's games nor Hellknight Feast. Make it so Alice!

[Warped]

Not sure what happened, but I submitted a table for Wonders in the Weave, but am listed for Hydra's Fang. The link does go to my Wonders in the Weave recruitment thread, so I'm not sure what's going on. I think Jesse's just trying to give me horrible flashbacks.

[GM Lithrac]

@GM Alice: Fantastic! I'm looking forward to it!

[Sior]

Question:
I submitted a game for the game day, but it's going to be two tables. Do I need to submit another form for the second table?

Similarly:
As I will be doing parts 2 and 3 after part 1. Do I need to submit forms for each of those tables as well?

[IronHelixx]

Email the VO account: [e-mail]

N N 959 wrote:

Jesse,

How do I change my listed scenario?

[IronHelixx]

First - thank you for running, Sir. :)

Second - Yes, please. Submit each game you intend to run. That list will be used to confirm games ran, contact GMs, deliver GM boons, and to get product support for the GMs, et cetera.

Sior wrote:

Question:

I submitted a game for the game day, but it's going to be two tables. Do I need to submit another form for the second table?

Similarly:
As I will be doing parts 2 and 3 after part 1. Do I need to submit forms for each of those tables as well?

[Silbeg]

Been doing a little looking around, and I think I'll be GMing a game... Maybe a few back to back, if they work out. Looking now for one that I think will be a good rookie experience... Maybe The Penumbral Accords? Mostly trying to limit maps and the like. Don't think I want to do more than one, though. I'd see what my table wanted to do after that.

Will let you all know when I decide, for sure.

Am open to suggestions.

[IronHelixx]

Wow - You guys are racking up the games - looks like we are up to 73 as of right now.

Game List Updated (only includes public games):

http://pathfindersocietyonline.com/2014/03/pbp-game-day-2-game-list

If your game is not listed, and it was submitted as a public game, please email the Online VOs at: [e-mail]

(Also - please make sure you are submitting the email address you use on Paizo.com, otherwise we will not be able to add the scenarios to your accounts when the time comes.)

Thanks!

[GM Aram Zey]

Are we at liberty to use group initiative? I have been advised that it generally works better for pbp.

[Pirate Rob]

I'm not sure what you mean by "group" initiative, but we are not allowed to ignore rules we don't like for pbp convenience.

That said here's how I handle it:

What I generally do is roll initiative for everybody at the beginning of combat.

Initiative then tends to look something like this.

Super Long Example:

Initiative Rolls:

Alice 25
Bob 21
Horrible Monster of Doom 16
Carol 14
Danny 9
Some Mooks 7
Elliot 5
Frank 1 (Yes, Frank is a cleric)

I let Alice and Bob go in whatever over works because they could delay past each other to achieve the same result anyway.

Example

As you're examining the ground for signs of tracks, a horrible black monstrosity bursts through a nearby wall. Skittering and screeching it turns to you and grins with its alien eyes. Meanwhile several large wasp like creatures follow it through the hole and begin buzzing in your direction.

Initiative:

Alice
Bob
Horrible Monster of Doom
Carol
Danny
Some Mooks
Elliot
Frank

Alice and Bob are up.

...
After they've posted.

Alright your spells go off without a hitch and the party is now hasted and Bob is blurred.

The Horrible Monster of Doom lets loose an earth shattering screech, causing rubble and dust to fall from the ceiling. Everybody needs to make a DC 17 Will Save or be frightened for 2d4 ⇒ (1, 3) = 4 rounds. (Fear, Mind-Effecting, Supernatural)

Initiative:

Carol
Danny
Some Mooks
Elliot
Frank
Alice
Bob
Horrible Monster of Doom

Carol and Danny are up.

Note that these results are achievable by having PCs delay past each other etc. I have rarely run into issues with short duration buffs that I've had to pay extra attention to, but nothing I've had trouble resolving.

[Sior]

My pleasure!

Okay, then. I have just submitted the second table of the first game and the two tables for the second part. I will submit the final part upon its start if there is enough time. Unsure if that will be one or two tables.

Jesse Davis wrote:

First - thank you for running, Sir. :)

Second - Yes, please. Submit each game you intend to run. That list will be used to confirm games ran, contact GMs, deliver GM boons, and to get product support for the GMs, et cetera.

Sior wrote:

Question:

I submitted a game for the game day, but it's going to be two tables. Do I need to submit another form for the second table?

Similarly:
As I will be doing parts 2 and 3 after part 1. Do I need to submit forms for each of those tables as well?

[N N 959]

Pirate Rob wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "group" initiative, but we are not allowed to ignore rules we don't like for pbp convenience.

Except that's exactly what happens in pbp when it comes to initiative. Group Init is where all the PC's go and then all the NPC's go. The GM may use one or several methods to determine which group goes first. There was a GM with the PFS Mythweavers group who, at one point, got rid of rolling init all together and the coordinator did not care. Don't know if he's still doing this.

As a typical example, Let's say there are three NPC's. A BBEG and two mooks versus a party of six. The GM averages the init scores of the NPCs versus the players and the side with the highest average gets to go first. So either ALL NPCs go or ALL PC's go before the other side gets to go.

There are many permutations of GInit. Sometimes a GM will give the winning side only a Standard Action to start. At least a third of the GMs I've played with in PbP use Group Initiative. It's also important to point out that when you have only one NPC, or you have all the NPC's use the same init roll, it can be tantamount to a Group Init mechanic after the first round. Or if the lone NPC rolls highest or lowest, there is no difference between that outcome and a Group Init scheme.

Group Init is used under the belief that it speeds up combat. In the most ideal circumstances, I can believe that it might. However, there's no formal proof that it does. Even if we could prove there is some time savings, e.g the low dex fighters are always attacking first and killing first to end combat quickly, there are a ton of downsides:

1. Group Init tends to render many init boost abilities worthless or at the least severely marginalized.

Consider as Rogue who takes Improved Initiative feat along with Reactionary and has a +5 dex modifer. They will get +11 on Init. On average, that's a 21. At least in the early levels, this usually results in the Rogue catching someone flat-footed. In a typical GInit format, that +11 is being distributed among the entire party.

2. Group Init undermines much of the tactical aspect of PF. When facing many foes, a big part of combat is based on who goes when and what that means in terms of tactics. Group Init eliminates any consideration of what the NPC's behind you may do before your teammates act.

3. Group Init retards player development.. Aside from just not being able to enjoy the tactical richness that normal init can provide, Group Init teaches bad tactical habits. When/If those player go to F2F games, they will be unprepared to think logically about the sequence of battle. Leveraging Delay and Ready are important skills, as is timing of combat and coordination of effort.

4. Group Init can create unbalanced outcomes. When a party faces a large group of monsters, a GM typically breaks up that group into smaller init groups. Another way to understand this is that the damage groups are broken up. So even when players lose Init to some of the monsters, only some of PC's will be flat-footed. Only some of the monster will do damage before PC's can heal, etc. When the entire group of PC's or NPCs go at once. This will allow damage spikes that aren't contemplated by the game. You an have situations where the BBEG is killed in the first round because every PC got to attack it. Conversely a GM may inadvertently be forced to kill a PC because all the NPCs got to attack and only one NPC was targetable.

5. Group Init can lead to a lot of meta-gaming headaches. Mild meta-gaming isn't a big deal for me. However, I've seen those situations where a Fighter who posts first will miss his save by 1 or miss an attack by 1, and the Cleric who's init may have been higher, will come along and post after the fighter that they cast a spell which gives the Fighter that extra bonus to succeed. Shuffling around the actions for the best outcome, imo, really undermines the spirit of the game. I think it devalues the game.

So why is it so popular? A lot of it is perception.

1. Players don't have to wait to post. Most people who play PbP are available to post in a narrow window of time throughout a day. Most GInit schemes are first come first serve. This allows players to post whenever they are on. On paper this looks like HUGE time savings. But is it really?

Most PbP games take about two months. How much time is group init really shaving off a game that runs normal init? I can tell you that I've played both and the speed of the game has nothing to do with the init system used and everything to do with the GM's posting rate and whether or not you have active players.

2. It's easier for the GM. Some GMs like to be able to update all the NPC's and all the player action at once. As someone who runs normal init, I can see some of the appeal here. However, there are couple of problems with that approach. First, players are entitled to know the outcome of their attacks and spells after their turn. So as a PbP GM, you still need to notify players if the Bard's 3 points of damage killed the NPC goblin Sorcerer, so that the PC Cleric can decide if she's going to cast Silence or pull her mace and go bash the melee NPC's.

Second, having to update ALL the action in one post can take more time than I have at any given moment. It's usually easier for me to do smaller posts than one large post. YMMV.

Personally, I'd like to see Group Init abolished in PbP. In it's place, provide better methods for advancing the game when player don't post. For example, I ran a module where I forced the players to choose an alternate. If the person did not post within 24 hours, the alternate was asked to PCPC that player. I don't like putting characters on Delay/Total Defense because in tight battles, someone skipping their turn can lead to a TPK. That having been said, I can see some GM discretion working well i.e. if GM believes death is imminent, give players a longer time to respond or invoke the alternate clause.

[Sior]

N N 959 wrote:

Pirate Rob wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "group" initiative, but we are not allowed to ignore rules we don't like for pbp convenience.

*stuff*

I don't have a whole lot of experience with PbP, at least for different GM's, but I have never seen anything like you describe, 959. Just things run as described by Pirate Rob.

[GM Alice]

I've only seen one GM do a 'fully' group initiative. The others either go in order or allow for people within certain initiatives to post (i.e., everyone before the enemy can go, now everyone after).

It's also incredibly common in live games (from my experience) for GMs to have enemies go in groups anyway, because that's way easier to track.

[N N 959]

Sior wrote:

I don't have a whole lot of experience with PbP, at least for different GM's, but I have never seen anything like you describe, 959. Just things run as described by Pirate Rob.

I run it the same way PR does as well.

[N N 959]

GM Alice wrote:

It's also incredibly common in live games (from my experience) for GMs to have enemies go in groups anyway, because that's way easier to track.

Yes, if the party is facing two wolves and two orcs and two skeletons, I recall the 3.5 rules suggesting you can make three init rolls instead of six. I can't find that in the Paizo rules, but I imagine that it's there.

What I have not personally seen in F2F is in the above situation i.e. three different groups with different init mods, all the NPC's using the same init roll. I have seen that in PbP.

[DM Rah]

N N 959 wrote:

If the party is facing two wolves and two orcs and two skeletons, I recall the 3.5 rules suggesting you can make three init rolls instead of six. I can't find that in the Paizo rules, but I imagine that it's there.

I handle initiative this way in PbP and FtF (I suppose you could call it "subgroup initiative". Also, I don't generally roll seperate initiative for animal companions since their actions are often dictated by their master.

As far as game speed - from experience as a player I have been in a few PbPs where the GM rolled individual initiatives for everything, and it slowed the game down to a crawl every time.

When your initiative breakdown looks like this:

PC
Enemy
PC
BBG
PC
Pet
PC
Enemy
Enemy
PC
PC
Enemy

(And you have players that post once per day) Then 1 round of combat can take 3-5 days.

[N N 959]

DM Rah wrote:

Also, I don't generally roll seperate initiative for animal companions since their actions are often dictated by their master.

Per RAW, you are suppose to roll separate init for ACs, but not mounts. Animal Companions are allowed to act on their own. If a Druid has given her AC a Defend command while out of combat. The animal can be considered to have a Ready action to attack anyone who threatens the animal's master. If the animal's init is higher than the attacker, then the animal's attack will interrupt the attacker.

But you're right. In most cases the AC just delays until given a command. Alternatively, I've had to delay so that I could move with my AC.

Quote:

As far as game speed - from experience as a player I have been in a few PbPs where the GM rolled individual initiatives for everything, and it slowed the game down to a crawl every time.

When your initiative breakdown looks like this:

PC
Enemy
PC
BBG
PC
Pet
PC
Enemy
Enemy
PC
PC
Enemy

(And you have players that post once per day) Then 1 round of combat can take 3-5 days.

First, I've had one round of combat take 3-5 days in Group Init games. I've seen a Group Init game take one month to do a single encounter. Why? Because people weren't posting. It doesn't matter what format you run, PbP requires people who are committed to checking the game and posting frequently.

Second, your scenario is essentially a worst case justification. More commonly people speed up their posting during combat. And even in games that use GInit, there's always one or two people who won't post for days. Sometimes that's even in the GM. In your example, your still moving at the posting rate of the slowest person, so in RL, that scenario doesn't get you 1 round per day. You're assuming the GM is ready to go as soon as the last person posts and that is not usually the case.

Third, your response suggest that a 3-5 day round of combat is unacceptable for players who can only post once a day? Why? I'll counter that perception and point out that if your players can only commit to posting once a day, then that is the consequence in PbP. Players who elect to play PbP need to understand that the commitment to participate is, in fact, a commitment. When you go to a F2F game, players are expected to sit at the table and participate.

A player who commits to a PbP game and then doesn't post for two or three days in combat, is as detrimental to the game speed as a player in a face to face game who wanders off in the middle of a combat to go talk on the phone or get something to eat. In both scenarios, the GM should advance the game. This is why I really want the On-line VO's to give us some authorized options for moving the game along, especially in combat.

Fourth, if we convert your Init breakdown into a Group Init format, then you're going to suffer all the disadvantages I've listed above. IMO, we should not undermine the game experience just to speed up the game by a couple of days. The difference between doing your combat as Group Init and normal init is going to be dramatic in terms of tactics. It's play by post, it's going to go slowly. Have that expectation going in and set the right expectation with your players from the get go or people will be unnecessarily frustrated.

Don't get me wrong, I hate slow PbP games. If I am aware of players or GMs who can't maintain a good pace, I'll avoid them. I really think one of the improvements we can make in the PbP experience is for the game to advertise a minimum posting rate. Player can then choose games that require several times a day or several times a week. PbP would then be well served if it had consistent guidelines for managing character for players who can't meet that requirement.

[DM Rah]

I meant to indicate that my example was for a game that assumes a requirement of 1 post a day for players, which is the majority of the PbP games I have experienced. Comparing experiences of games where players or GMs don't meet that requirement (or neglect to post according to whatever the agreed upon rate is) side tracks the point.

Regarding Animal Companions, I said I generally don't roll a separate initiative for them, but every Companion, Familiar, or Eidolon is trained or built differently, so if a player requests a separate initiative I'll give it. (On a related note, the defend trick does not set the Animal Companion into a ready action, it only determines an automatic target for the AC to attack, which I would consider occurring after someone has made a threatening action against it's master, thus delaying initiative, not readying an attack.)

Also, I never suggested group initiative for players. I use essentially the same method as Pirate Rob, though I don't rotate through the initiative, preferring to keep them organized into rounds.

Example (assuming 6 PCs, 1 BBG, and 4 enemy henchmen)

INITIATIVE - Round 1
PC
PC
BBG
PC
Enemy Henchmen
PC
PC
PC

I would also move all PCs with initiatives at the end of the round to the top of round 2 as soon as the henchmen have acted. Players tend to wait until the round is officially over before declaring actions in the next round, even though there is no difference between going at the end of a round or the beginning of the next.

So, round 2 would become this:

INITIATIVE - Round 2
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
BBG
PC
Enemy Henchmen

[Shifty]

GM Registration:

I am running two tables -

Schedule wrote:

Group 1
Perils of the Pirate Pact/Hydras Fang/Glass River Rescue.

Group 2
Glass River Rescue/Hydras Fang/Perils of the Pirate Pact.

Q: Do I need to pre-register 6 sessions, or just the three scenarios?

Effectively its two tables playing the same three things.

[N N 959]

PRD wrote:

[i]Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

Per RAW, it's reasonable to allow a Defend to translate to a Ready action for the animal if the animal's init is higher and no on has attacked the master yet.

Quote:

I meant to indicate that my example was for a game that assumes a requirement of 1 post a day for players, which is the majority of the PbP games I have experienced. Comparing experiences of games where players or GMs don't meet that requirement (or neglect to post according to whatever the agreed upon rate is) side tracks the point.

But that's my point. I've never been in a PbP game where posting was consistent among all participants. The norm, ime, is that people don't meet the requirements at some point or another and the game moves at varying pace. So it's difficult to know if Group Init is saving time or how much its saving. What we do know is that it is contrary to RAW and that it skews the game when its used.

[Shifty]

If the player hasn't posted an action in 24 hours they move to 'Delay' and we move on without them. Should it be reasonable to expect them to act (ie to save another player etc) I am happy to 'GMPC' them to do so.

[DM Rah]

N N 959 wrote:

PRD wrote:

[i]Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

Per RAW, it's reasonable to allow a Defend to translate to a Ready action for the animal if the animal's init is higher and no on has attacked the master yet.

Unless a description specifically says "the animal can defend you as a ready action" that's an interpretation of the rules, not RAW. My interpretation is different then yours, and if I was in your game I'd play by your version.

[N N 959]

DM Rah wrote:

N N 959 wrote:

PRD wrote:

[i]Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend another specific character.

Per RAW, it's reasonable to allow a Defend to translate to a Ready action for the animal if the animal's init is higher and no on has attacked the master yet.

Unless a description specifically says "the animal can defend you as a ready action" that's an interpretation of the rules, not RAW. My interpretation is different then yours, and if I was in your game I'd play by your version.

By that logic, no creature in the entire bestiary can use a Delay or Ready action because the creature entries don't specifically call for it. The phrase "is ready to defend you if no threat is present" is written in plain english. Refusing to allow this to function as a Ready action is really going out of your way to screw over the players on this one.

[DM Rah]

N N 959, I think we've hijacked this thread enough. I'm not going to argue with you about this.

My intent was to offer advice for GMs looking for efficient ways of handling initiative in PbPs. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just trying to illustrate pros and cons of a system as I see it. Not every GM or player has the same style, and I believe the rules are flexible enough to allow them to make their own judgements.

[N N 959]

DM Rah wrote:

N N 959, I think we've hijacked this thread enough. I'm not going to argue with you about this.

My intent was to offer advice for GMs looking for efficient ways of handling initiative in PbPs. I'm not telling anyone what to do, just trying to illustrate pros and cons of a system as I see it. Not every GM or player has the same style, and I believe the rules are flexible enough to allow them to make their own judgements.

The rules do not allow one to use Group Init. Doing so is in direct contravention of RAW. People still do it under the justification that speeding up the game justifies breaking the rules. If we are going to advocate breaking rules, there's no limit to what we can do to speed up the game. PFS needs to decide at what point making the PbP game faster erodes the player experience. Does that happen with Group Init? Opinions may vary. What is not an opinion is that Group Init is contrary to RAW. The PFS guide specifically does not allow GMs to break the rules in the interest of their subjective opinion on what is more "fun" for the players.

PFS Guide 5.3 Page 32 wrote:

As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgements, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder Roleplaying Game source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com. What it does mean is that only you can judge what is right for your table during cases not covered in these sources.

Emphasis added.

I'm going to repeat what I said before. PFS should endeavor to provide tools for allowing GMs to move the game along when/if players don't participate, it should not enable GMs to break the rules as they see fit.

[GM Alice]

Initiative on the GM side

It seems that a lot of face-to-face GMs use some form of group initiative. In fact, the moment you're dealing with more than say three monsters, I think it would be a monumental waste of time whether on PbP or otherwise to not do so.

I have almost never seen the type of "pure" group initiative you speak of (i.e., all PCs go and then all enemies go) unless that's how the dice actually fell. So I think your complaints are a little misguided.

If you think that GMs are breaking the rules in this regard, I strongly suggest you take this up on a different thread in the PFS GM forums to discuss it, and/or contact the VOs or even Mike Brock. This is getting incredibly side-tracked.

[DM Rah]

GM Alice, agreed. I will not say another word about it here.

[N N 959]

GM Alice wrote:

Initiative on the GM side

I took a look at that.

Quote:

It seems that a lot of face-to-face GMs use some form of group initiative.

I see a majority of GMs who break up init in to smaller groups. I've only been talking about the situation where all of one side goes or all of another side goes and the rules would dictate otherwise.

Quote:

In fact, the moment you're dealing with more than say three monsters, I think it would be a monumental waste of time whether on PbP or otherwise to not do so.

Don't know what you mean by "waste of time" but at least under 3.5 subgrouping was explicitly advocated when you have identical monsters. I'm not advocating against subgrouping. And yet, even under that method, you see problems like this one I found in your link:

terry_t_uk wrote:

Interestingly, I stopped rolling 1 initiative for all bad guys after an Living Greyhawk game. We (Level 3 characters) came across 4 stirges (which had some template which game them a breath weapon). They all went first(all 4 breathe, 1 party member looks at his fallen comrades).

Our GM realised his "error" and backtracked - rolled different initiatives, much happier party :-)

GM Alice wrote:

I have almost never seen the type of "pure" group initiative you speak of (i.e., all PCs go and then all enemies go) unless that's how the dice actually fell. So I think your complaints are a little misguided.

Then consider yourself fortunate. Here is a muster for a Gameday PbP from a GM who is using Group Init, which he calls "Block Initiative." Link was removed as this is not about reporting GMs

I'll quote his "House Rules" spoiler

Quote:

No taking 20 every five steps please. I will be using a block initiative system for my games: both groups will have their initiative rolled, combined, and divided by the number of people in their group. The higher roller will act first in one block, the lower second in one block. Posting order is entirely up to you, you could go at the top of the block one round and the bottom the next.

Quote:

This is getting incredibly side-tracked.

This thread is about Gameday PbP and includes discussion on how the game should be managed. Please don't try and stifle discussion that relates directly to how PbP Games are supposed to be played.

[Pirate Rob]

N N 959 wrote:

I'll quote his "House Rules" spoiler

Quote:

No taking 20 every five steps please. I will be using a block initiative system for my games: both groups will have their initiative rolled, combined, and divided by the number of people in their group. The

...

I don't believe his house rules are compatible with PFS play, however its the sort of thing that should probably be PMed to Jesse Davis, rather than drug up in the middle of a thread.

[N N 959]

The post is not an attempt to report a GM. The post is offered to counter GM Alices suggestion that no one uses Group/Block Init and illustrate the need for guidelines specific to PbP.

[GM Alice]

I am not trying to "stifle" discussion. I simply feel this is a broader issue than the 2nd game day that would do well to be discussed elsewhere, as the issue is (in my anecdotal experience, much like your own) not as frequent as you make it out to be.

I didn't say "no one"; I've played PFS under those rules or similar before. But it's in the minority. IME, of course.

Last post from me on this matter.

[N N 959]

GM Alice wrote:

I am not trying to "stifle" discussion. I simply feel this is a broader issue than the 2nd game day that would do well to be discussed elsewhere, as the issue is (in my anecdotal experience, much like your own) not as frequent as you make it out to be.]

There is no better time to talk about it than when you are trying to bring new GMs to PbP. Perhaps you missed this post:

GM Aram Zey wrote:

Are we at liberty to use group initiative? I have been advised that it generally works better for pbp.

Is it possible it's far more prevalent than you are aware? And exactly how frequent have I made it out to be?

[redward]

I'm considering running a game for this. Was thinking Elven Entanglement, but I also noticed there aren't currently any 7 - 11 games. Should that be scaring me off the idea, or it that all the more reason to run one?

[Sior]

All the more reason to run one! Go for it!

[thunderspirit]

You might consider limiting your table size as 7-11s can run long (Waking Rune notwithstanding).

But otherwise, absolutely, go for it!

[Greycloak of Bowness]

FYI, the link for this game is dead:
Chris Marsh 5-9 5-07: Port Godless Paizo 04/05/14

[Pirate Rob]

redward wrote:

I'm considering running a game for this. Was thinking Elven Entanglement, but I also noticed there aren't currently any 7 - 11 games. Should that be scaring me off the idea, or it that all the more reason to run one?

I ran a 7-11 last time, Waking Rune amusingly enough. They even completed.

Posting Stats:

Here are the posting stats for that game:

Total posts: 500
Duration: 37 days
Heaviest posting day of week: Thursday
Maximum posts in one day: 41
Average posts per day: 13.08

Post counts by poster: ("Malinor of Cheliax" . 3) ("P33J" . 1) ("Hugo Victor" . 63) (""Fletch"" . 44) ("Malinor." . 42) ("Pirate GM" . 168) ("Ezrek Filosten" . 60) ("Baltar Gamwich" . 50) ("Liam L'Outre" . 69)

As a percent of total posts: ("Malinor of Cheliax" . 0.6) ("P33J" . 0.2) ("Hugo Victor" . 12.6) (""Fletch"" . 8.8) ("Malinor." . 8.4) ("Pirate GM" . 33.6) ("Ezrek Filosten" . 12.0) ("Baltar Gamwich" . 10.0) ("Liam L'Outre" . 13.8)

Even if you only posted half as often as we did, you'd still finish in a comfortable 74 days, well under the 3 months.

GMing 7-11s tend to be a bit more work, but not excessively so. Really you should GM whatever you'll have the most fun doing, there is clearly plenty of demand.

*Waking Rune Spoilers* Here is the game if you want to take a look. *Waking Rune Spoilers*

[redward]

Thanks for all the advice; I'll give it a shot! (recruitment thread here).

[Pirate Rob]

Woot! Thanks for stepping up and GMing.

[IronHelixx]

The Game List has been updated (Private games are not listed):

http://pathfindersocietyonline.com/2014/03/pbp-game-day-2-game-list

Looks like we are pretty full. There are a few tables that are not legal levels yet, but most open tables only have one or two seats open.

There are currently 112 submitted games. :)

[PeteZero]

Make it 113. Might want to list my gameDM PeteZero's PbP GameDay 2: PFS From Shore to Sea but I have the feeling we might have reached a saturation level by now.

[GM Alice]

So because there's about a week left until the event kicks off, I thought I'd make a handy list for anyone still looking for games.

(Sorry in advance if I forgot your game! I tried my best!)

.
.

Nearly there - needs 1-2 more players for a legal table

Subtier 1-2

• #0-08: The Slave Pits of Absalom (link)
  
• #1-35: Voice in the Void (link)
  

Subtier 6-7

• #2-21: The Dalsine Affair (link)
  
• Module: From Shore to Sea (link)
  

Struggling to survive - needs 3-4 more players for a legal table

Tier 1-5

• #5-04: The Stolen Heir (link - MythWeavers)
  
• #5-11: Library of the Lion (link)
  

Tier 3-7

• #4-14: My Enemy's Enemy (link)
  
• #5-02: The Wardstone Patrol (link - MythWeavers)
  
• #5-02: The Wardstone Patrol (link - MythWeavers)
  
• #5-07: Port Godless (link)
  

Tier 7-11

• #5-05: The Elven Entanglement (link)
  

Legal table, but has 1-2 more spots left

Subtier 1-2

• #1-35: Voice in the Void (link - RPG Geek)
  
• #3-11: The Quest for Perfection, Part II: On Hostile Waters (link - MythWeavers)
  
• #3-19: The Icebound Outpost (link - MythWeavers)
  
• #3-21: The Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment (link)
  
• #5-08: The Confirmation (link)
  

Subtier 3-4

• #4-09: The Blakros Matrimony (link)
  
• #4-11: The Disappeared (link)
  
• #5-02: The Wardstone Patrol (link)
  

Subtier 5-6

• #5-07: Port Godless (link)
  

Subtier 6-7

• #5-14: Day of the Demon (link)
  

Subtier 7-8

• #4-26: The Waking Rune (link)
  

Subtier 8-9

• #5-13: Weapon in the Rift (link) *note, table is playing Hard Mode*
  

[Sior]

GM Alice wrote:

So because there's about a week left until the event kicks off, I thought I'd make a handy list for anyone still looking for games.

(Sorry in advance if I forgot your game! I tried my best!)

***List***

Amusingly, I have played all of those except the module, which I don't typically do. Well, and 'Weapon in the Rift', but I'm in that table for Hard Mode.

[GM Derek W]

I'm playing in four games. I had gotten to six, but that's just too many with everything else on my plate. I've got four GM games going too, but that will drop to 3 once the event starts.

As for Waking Rune, I'm hoping to pump my GP and level as much as possible ahead of time. Gotta get HP, AC, saves, to hit up there. And prestige - I want AT LEAST 21 going in.

[IronHelixx]

Thanks for doing that, GM Alice :)

GM Alice wrote:

So because there's about a week left until the event kicks off, I thought I'd make a handy list for anyone still looking for games....

[DM Kludde]

Wow. Just wow. Well over a hundred games, that is impressive. Looking forward to running and playing, all!

[Curaigh]

Wow thanks for that list GM Alice!

[IronHelixx]

Great job, Guys. 118 total games submitted for PbP Game Day 2. :)

The deadline for game submissions has now passed, and the game list was submitted to Paizo.

If you submitted a game to GM and do not get your PDFs, for those running regular PFS Scenarios, added to your Paizo downloads by Tuesday evening, April 2nd, 2014, please let us know at [e-mail] so we can get that worked out.

(Paizo is usually pretty quick turning those around, so some of you may even have them this weekend.)

We will send out details to the GMs next week that will detail how to report your games, boon details, the event number, and all that.

If you have not received the GM Detail email by Friday, April 4th, 2014 @ 5 PM GMT please drop us an email at the address above and we will forward that info to you.

Thanks again!

- Jesse [IronHelixx]